Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: Decision no. 534/2016
    • Member State: Romania
    • Common Name:link
    • Decision type: Other
    • Decision date: 17/05/2016
    • Court: Timis Tribunal
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Unknown
    • Defendant: Unknown
    • Keywords: consumer rights, right of withdrawal
  • Directive Articles
    Consumer Rights Directive, Chapter 3, Article 9, 1.
  • Headnote
    The consumer has to prove that a contract was concluded off-premises. The wording of the agreement is irrelevant.
  • Facts
    The plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agency agreement. The plaintiff asked for the termination of such agreement, considering that the provisions of Directive 2011/83/EEC (implemented into Romanian law by the provisions of Government Emergency Ordinance no. 34/2014 on consumer rights ) are applicable and thus, he may exercise the right of withdrawal.
    The receipt submitted by the plaintiff reveals that the payment was made at the headquarters of the defendant in Timisoara, also indicated by the plaintiff in the application. Therefore, it is a contract entered into in commercial premises. In this context, it is irrelevant that the wording of the agreement between the parties refers to the defendant's headquarters in Bucharest, especially since the plaintiff does not have any evidence to prove that the contract was concluded at a distance or off-premises.
  • Legal issue
    The court held that the contract is not a distance or an off-premises one and, therefore, the normative act mentioned by the plaintiff is not applicable.
  • Decision

    Is the consumer obliged to prove that a contract was concluded off-premises ?

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    The plaintiff's revision request is rejected.